Attending the University Design Forum Annual Conference last month left us with a lot to reflect on. Focusing on ‘Back to the Future: University Design: Past Present and Future’, we were challenged to think about how we shape places that continue to serve evolving communities over time.

One of the strongest provocations came from the Antwerp case studies. Simplicity and robustness in design deliver far more value, both socially and financially, than many of our more complex and costly buildings in the UK. Buildings constructed at around £2,000 per square metre using rectilinear forms, natural ventilation, and basic, well-detailed materials aren’t just cost-effective – they are better used.

The conference also reminded us that reuse has huge potential, whether of buildings, materials, or existing campus infrastructure. Some of the most successful spaces are the ones that have been made to work and repurposed with intention. Reimagining entrances or underutilised buildings can be more impactful than an expensive new build.

Adaptability surfaced repeatedly. Are lecture theatres even necessary anymore? With declining on-campus attendance and a growing culture of digital flexibility, we are questioning the very spatial typologies we rely on. Reiach and Hall Architects reminded us that masterplanning should be about long-term frameworks, not fixed plans. Strategies must evolve with institutions and their communities, and remain open to engagement throughout their life. Adam Scott captured it perfectly: “Engagement first, red line last.”

Professor Peter Madden, OBE pushed us further when he asked what it really means to design for the future. Not the abstract future, but real, emerging trends like AI in education, holograms in lecture halls, declining birth rates, and rising temperatures. Reflecting on R. Buckminster Fuller’s saying, “We are called to be architects of the future, not its victim”, Madden posed the question: “Who are we designing for? Who owns the future?”. He argued that if we don’t shape it with intention, it will be shaped for us, more likely in ways that exclude rather than include.

For us as a studio, the key takeaway confirms that thoughtful, future-focused design doesn’t require complexity. Simplicity is often the most impactful strategy; with reuse delivering more value than starting from scratch and adaptability being embedded from the outset, not retrofitted later. Designing for the future means embracing uncertainty and designing spaces that continue to respond to their users, context, and purpose. We couldn’t agree more!

Read more about the key topics and expert lineup here.